OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the effects of a smartphone-triggered method of feedback delivery on students' perceptions of the feedback process. METHODS: An interactive electronic feedback form was made available to students through a smartphone app. Students were asked to evaluate various aspects of the feedback process. Responses from a previous year served as control. RESULTS: In the first three quarters of academic year 2014-2015 (pre-implementation), only 65% of responders reported receiving oral feedback and 40% reported receiving written feedback. During the pilot phase (transition), these increased to 80% for both forms. Following full implementation in academic year 2015-2016 (post-implementation), 97% reported receiving oral feedback, and 92% reported receiving written feedback. A statistically significant difference was noted pre- to post-implementation for both oral and written feedback (p < 0.01). A significant increase from pre-implementation to transition was noted for written feedback (p < 0.01) and from transition to post-implementation for oral feedback (p < 0.01). Ninety-one and 94% of responders reported ease of access and timeliness of the feedback, 75% perceived the quality of the feedback to be good to excellent; 64% felt receiving feedback via the app improved their performance; 69% indicated the feedback method as better compared to other methods. Students acknowledged the facilitation of conversation with supervisors and the convenience of receiving feedback, as well as the promptness with which feedback was provided. The use of a drop-down menu was thought to limit the scope of conversation. CONCLUSION: These data point to the effectiveness of this method to cue supervisors to provide feedback to students.
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the effects of a smartphone-triggered method of feedback delivery on students' perceptions of the feedback process. METHODS: An interactive electronic feedback form was made available to students through a smartphone app. Students were asked to evaluate various aspects of the feedback process. Responses from a previous year served as control. RESULTS: In the first three quarters of academic year 2014-2015 (pre-implementation), only 65% of responders reported receiving oral feedback and 40% reported receiving written feedback. During the pilot phase (transition), these increased to 80% for both forms. Following full implementation in academic year 2015-2016 (post-implementation), 97% reported receiving oral feedback, and 92% reported receiving written feedback. A statistically significant difference was noted pre- to post-implementation for both oral and written feedback (p < 0.01). A significant increase from pre-implementation to transition was noted for written feedback (p < 0.01) and from transition to post-implementation for oral feedback (p < 0.01). Ninety-one and 94% of responders reported ease of access and timeliness of the feedback, 75% perceived the quality of the feedback to be good to excellent; 64% felt receiving feedback via the app improved their performance; 69% indicated the feedback method as better compared to other methods. Students acknowledged the facilitation of conversation with supervisors and the convenience of receiving feedback, as well as the promptness with which feedback was provided. The use of a drop-down menu was thought to limit the scope of conversation. CONCLUSION: These data point to the effectiveness of this method to cue supervisors to provide feedback to students.
Keywords:
Feedback; Medical education; Mobile application